Category: National Alliance

The Headquarters Question

A practical issue.

Long time readers of this blog know that I am critical of Dr. William Pierce for (among other things, many things in fact) moving from the DC area to the mountains of West Virginia.  I am equally critical of other pro-White leaders who have their “national offices” out in the middle of nowhere. We need to consider this issue.

I am not stupid and naïve, so I do understand some of the advantages of an out-of-the-way, middle-of-nowhere location. The first is increased physical security, a concern of more import today than it was even in Pierce’s day. This is in fact, really, the only major legitimate issue. Second, somewhat, but not totally, tied to the first, is the improved demographics, and third is the issue of being “cheaper to live.”

We’ll get back to these arguments, but let’s look at the other side of the ledger – the profound negatives, the costs, of this approach. There are two major issues that I will deal with here (other issues may exist, but let’s focus on the major ones). First, it is not optimal, not “healthy” from the “political” standpoint, for a leader of an alleged national and international organization or movement to be so isolated from the main political, social, etc. currents of society.  The riposte to that would be that the presence of the Internet (that in Pierce’s specific case did not exist when he made his move), and instantaneous global communication, makes proximity to the main currents of national (and international) realities unnecessary.  However, even if we are to assume that Internet access would never be abrogated for political reasons, or in a national emergency (never mind a local “outage” – is the Grand Fuhrer then cut off?), in the last analysis, digital cannot fully substitute for analog.  In the last analysis, the race crisis takes place in the real world, the physical world, and it cannot be fully engaged with, only and always, with digital bits. A further riposte against my analysis would be that America is a big place, and the world is bigger, and just because someone is located “more urban” does not mean they have physical proximity to the other side of the country or the other side of the world.  That’s true, but – besides my admonition of having multiple headquarters, see below – the point here is to optimize the situation in a realistic fashion, not expect a person to be in all places at once. The question is whether a leader of an alleged “world historical mission” should be “close to the action” to the extent possible or out somewhere where the only “action” is cow tipping and gopher hunting.

The second major issue is one of public perception. Like it or not, it is difficult to take seriously pretentions of national and international status when your “national office” is in the mountains of West Virginia or some other out-of-the-way place. Dismissing this as “superficial” doesn’t alter the reality one bit. Like it or not, politics is in large part perception – after all, didn’t the “National Alliance membership handbook” tell members always to be “well groomed” etc. when interacting with the public?  Aren’t there standards of behavior and appearance that go beyond the need to stay within the law?  Aren’t there concerns with public image and public perception? If such concerns are valid, then having “PO Box 100, Woodchuck Way, Grasslands Trailer Park, Arkansas” as your “national office” mailing address is not going to inspire confidence among your target audience. Call that “elitist” or whatever, but it is still reality.

What about the positives listed above?  Security is a concern, but I note that Amren and Counter-Currents have both survived despite being “closer to the action” and the “multiple headquarters” solution (see below), if possible, would at least partially alleviate this concern. And, anyway, in the long run, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Consider it from the public perception standpoint – an organization that has not at least minimally dealt with the problem of security other than being “snug in their hobbit hole in the forest” is not going to inspire confidence that they can “save the White race.” If you cannot defend yourself, then how will you defend the race? Hiding from demographic change doesn’t inspire confidence either. Economic concerns are somewhat overblown, considering the millions of dollars that flow into “movement” pockets. If your organization cannot compete with VDARE for funding, then, again, from a public perception standpoint, what good is it?

The optimal solution to this conundrum is to have multiple headquarters, at least two.  At least one of these can be the out-of-the-way “hobbit hole” location that maximizes the alleged advantages – particularly physical security – mentioned near the beginning of this essay.  The other headquarters – that needs to be the group’s “official headquarters” as well as the group’s mailing address – needs to be close to a major urban area, within access of an airport that is either international or has connecting flights to international airports (preferably the former), etc.  This second headquarters could even be, at first, just a PO Box and some office space, but with a plan for growth.  The “hobbit hole” headquarters can be the secure fall back – or, if the “leader” is so inclined, even the primary residence, but there has to be a physical location “close to the action” that the “leader” often visits. The optimal thing in my opinion would be for the primary residence to be “close to the action” with the “hobbit hole” being the alternate secure “back up” – but if we are dealing with a rural-loving persona like Pierce allowances can be made otherwise. If more satellite headquarters can be set up, even better. The security issue at the more “close to the action” location would need to be dealt with but an organization that wants to “save the White race” had better come up with viable solutions.

The bottom line is that, ultimately, only having a “hobbit hole” headquarters out in the middle of nowhere is not going to get the job done. Maybe that situation must obtain at the beginning of a group’s existence, but some of these groups have been around for decades. The National Alliance has been in existence for ~ 50 years.  In the beginning some of these groups actually were “close to the action.” At some point, excuses need to end. At some point, the organization needs to demonstrate that it is capable of effectively engaging with the broader society that it wishes to change.

Odds and Ends, 6/21/20

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.
Another example of how ethnonationalists ruin everything they touch:

1999, a manifesto of a second ‘European Liberation Front’ was published in Paris, but there is apparently no more active organisation of that name now. The manifesto takes its ideological inspiration from Yockey, and from Otto Strasser, who was expelled from the Nazi Party by Adolf Hitler in 1930.

Despite the pan-European style of its title, the ideology of the manifesto is ethnic and racial nationalism

Take over the name of Yockey’s organization and then promote an opposing ideology.  Very good!  Hail Der Movement!

Authentic pan-Europeanism does not exist in any organization of which I am aware over the last 50 years or more, except Lowell’s in Malta.

Forney on Spencer Part I.Part II.
Note that I do not agree on Forney on all his comments, but, nevertheless, the rank-and-file needs to understand where their affirmative action program leads.  I also find Forney’s glee at Spencer’s problems unseemly.  It is not funny, it is a tragedy.  I don’t care about Spencer himself, but we all need to realize that the White public – you know, the folks that your “movement” wants to recruit from – do not make fine distinctions between Spencer, Johnson, Forney, Taylor et al.  It’s all one.  Spencer’s downfall therefore reflects badly on the entirety of racial activism in the public “mind.”  
That downfall, ultimately, derives from the lack of judgment of “movement” “elites.”  Spencer should never have been allowed to be the head of NPI in the first place; that position should have gone to an older individual with more experience, maturity, and gravitas. Spencer should instead have been groomed for electoral politics, as the smiling young face of the Far Right, with mature adults as his behind-the-scenes handlers. 
The past cannot be changed. But going forward, the affirmative program needs to be eliminated.  That is step one.  It’s not a case of a single rotten apple that needs to be gotten rid of, it’s a whole case.  And as soon as one apple becomes so horribly decayed that it is thrown out, another one joins in. The entire crate needs to be thrown out, and the entire process of picking rotten apples changed.

A sincere man of genuine greatness.

Glad to see we got dem dere Republican conservative judges like “Earl Warren Jr.” Roberts there.

I’m no fan of Rushton, but the retraction of his hypothesis paper was unfair and disgusting, and I agree with this analysis, which is a refutation of leftist hysteria that helped get the paper unfairly retracted.  I also agree with the analysis in that the author of the leftist attack on Rushton-Templar doesn’t understand what pleiotropy is, possibly confusing it with epistasis (or who knows what).  I am also amused by the leftist critique of Rushton-Templar for having a “political bias.” Hoho!  What about the leftist critic’s bias?  Would he care to inform us on his views on say, race in America?  What’s his party affiliation?  Who did he vote for in 2016? What about, say, Lewontin’s biases?  Any comments on that?
If the Rushton-Templar paper was inherently flawed – even as a hypothesis – and this somehow escaped the notice of the reviewers at that time, then the appropriate response is to write a paper (for publication) refuting the Rushton-Templar logic and/or do studies that produce data refuting the Rushton-Templar hypothesis. Retracting the paper is politically motivated censorship, leading us to a scientific dark ages. The retraction is a disgrace.

Hey, it’s time for Trump to tweet LAW AND ORDER!  That’ll fix it.  Fat Don is like, you know, demonstrating his sincerity and his genuine greatness!

I was looking at Amazon reviews of Robert Griffin’s One Sheaf One Vine book, of interest to me since I am one of the people featured in it.  Two excerpts from the comments I found amusing:

1. Interesting anthropological study. Nothing really new here, but contains only interview available of Alex Linder. No other interviews with people who would go on to become personages. 

That’s a stinging rebuke of my lack of accomplishment I suppose.

2. Another observation I make, is that none of the people in the book, offer any solutions to the racial problems they criticize. In numerous cases, they simply flee those high-‘diversity’ problems by moving to other, whiter states. But none of them seem to envision the new domiciles undergoing future change.

Let’s see.  I spend a significant portion of my interview talking about practical things that should be done.  So it would seem that this individual lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever.  As well, with respect to the second half of the criticism, I’m not one of the “numerous cases” since that’s nowhere in my section.
Also interesting is that if you search on Amazon for a book like this, you get “suggested reading” consisting of a host of anti-White diatribes.  Like Google, Amazon is another company I am going to personally “deplatform” from any spending.

Thus in summary: Sallis right, Johnson wrong.

Kevin Strom:

The purpose of the race that is is to bring into being the race that is to come. Let’s concentrate on that. Let’s concentrate on being the ones who decide that.I have been in this cause of ours for nearly 40 years. I have seen and heard and read so much wasted verbiage about why Russians or eastern Europeans generally, or southern Europeans generally, or even other odd subracial or national combinations should be read out of the White race. I have heard it all, please don’t repeat it to me. I’m sick of it.
The group or groups which coalesce to save our endangered race will be the ones who determine its genetic future. Beyond the obvious aesthetic that we know White when we see it, and a future that can include (but not be totally ruled by) accurate genetic testing, that’s all we need to know. If the White future is primarily Russian or Hungarian, so be it. If the White future is primarily pan-European American with strong German, Anglo, and Irish components, so be it. If the White future is predominantly Greek or Italian or Bulgarian or Nordic, so be it. None of us are in a position to pick and choose right now, nor does such picking and choosing make sense during this crisis.
Let’s just admit that every single group and sub-group of Europeans has racially devolved — due to dysgenics, due to genetic drift, due to past mixtures. Let’s just admit that every single White nationality could be — and, if we have anything to say about it, will be — helped by a healthy dose of eugenics.
But never forget this: We are targeted and marked for death as Whites. It is as Whites — not as dolichocephalic Red Nordids, or Paleo-Atlantids, or western Europeans only — that we must become awakened and fight back.

Very good; I obviously agree.  But then Strom has to admit that much of the work of Pierce and of the National Alliance was and is de facto opposed to that pan-European view. As regards Pierce accepting people with fractional Amerindian ancestry (and Pierce’s gibbering about “Caucasian” Amerindian tribes is nonsense – whatever their appearance, they are racial aliens from Asia), we must remember that the “Indian princess” stories – real or imagined – typically derive from “Nordish” Anglo-Americans. They’ve always gotten a “pass” for that – the “Pace Amendment” for example.

By the way, even Yockey himself wasn’t immune to a touch of Nordicism, with respect to his rhapsodizing about “Northern barbarians” in both Imperium and, more especially, Thoughts Personal and Superpersonal. I suppose we can forgive Yockey for that lapse, since the broader “movement” he derives from has always been marinated in Nordicism, but it is rather hypocritical of him given his pontifications about horizontal vs. vertical race.  And what would he think today, with all of the “Northern Barbarians” being the biggest race cucks of them all?

And by the way, Yockeyites past and present should know that The Doctrine of Fascism they so admire was really written by Giovanni Gentile, not Benito Mussolini.  But Gentile was one of those two foot tall superstitious Sicilians who so vexed Humphrey Ireland, so who cares about facts?

Newly discovered!  A film clip of Humphrey Ireland being overwhelmed by the scurrying Sicilian hordes.

More Insight and Delusion

Of interest.

But hey, he’s a sincere man of genuine greatness, right Mr. Johnson?

Why the rank-and-file let their fetishism enable this sorry lot of affirmative action “leadership” is beyond me.


Sports FangPosted June 5, 2020 at 12:07 pm | PermalinkBabe Ruth experts: was he a mulatto? I’m not a baseball fan and don’t want to read a Ruth bio, but even ignorants like me have heard stories. Like Ty Cobb refusing to room with him because he said he would never share a house with…one of the people who cannot be N’d.Does it matter at this late date? Yes, cuz Rachel Dolezall (sp?)

There is no genealogical evidence that Ruth had any New World admixture, Negro or otherwise.  He was of German descent.  It is doubtful that Cobb actually believed Ruth was a mulatto; when playing, Cobb disliked Ruth for personal reasons (envy and displeasure over how Ruth’s style of play changed the game). The two men later reconciled. If you have a problem with Ruth’s phenotype, then blame his Old World German ancestry.  Believe it or not, not all Germans look like Nordic Aryan supermen.

Comments (emphasis added):

Canadian guysays:June 15, 2020 at 4:49 pmGood overall but i think the obsession with moving out into the countryside is a terrible idea. Cities are typically where the money is and we need to be building a support system such that we can thrive in the cities. In the countryside you are just waiting to get the Kulack/Africkaaner treatment and get either butchered to death by vibrants or have your land confiscated by racial-communists.If your cities are lost and you are at the point of wanting to hide out in the countryside – why not just wave the white flag and accept that you lost and then start organizing an exodus to less hostile territory? The economy is sliding into the abyss and the country is lurching towards south africa/ zimbabwe/ san domingue / venezuela and it’s hard to believe that things will get better as the years progress. Maybe you have to jump ship.

Gee, the “twigs and branches” “hobbit hole” crowd won’t like that at all.  Cities?  What? Are you some soft city-bred White who doesn’t know how to skin a deer (preferably one infected with CWD) or how to graze on wild-growing flowering plants (preferably hemlock)?  For shame!  Weakling!

Glutsays:June 14, 2020 at 10:21 pmWhat cuckolded tripe bullshit is this! We don’t have time for LowT ,betamale cuckolded bullshit. Oh bend to political correctness to win these sick, deluded , leftists over to common sense, Is that all you got? What a worthless and disgusting dissertation this time. He preaches kowing to the dogs when kowing is what got us here. Idiot

Insane and indecent!  Crazy and bitter!

Achilles Wannabesays:June 15, 2020 at 12:34 amIf you ground yourself in those three sources—(the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and Thomas Jefferson )rather than, say, Mein Kampf—where does it take you?”Some might say that is a loaded way to frame the philosophical question of what is good government but I will bite. I’ll take Mein Kampf over the Founders.Why? As a very assimilated 4th generation Irish person of Catholic origin I grew up idolizing the founders and their individualism. But where did it get me? It got me my second or third class citizenship in the Semitic Republic of the United States. While we Catholic ethnics were at least trying to practice individualism and at least wondering if “Big Government” were going too far on this or that issue, the WASP’s and the JEWS worked TOGETHER to take over everything – the big government, the economy, the society. That is what believing in the founders and their individualism got meOK, Hitler didn’t do so well either but at least he was left the dignity of being taken down by the EXTERNAL force of the WASPs and the JEWS I however was conned by people I considered to be my own people – you know, the other “individualists” who I thought just happened to be Jewish or Anglo but actually turned out to be the JEW – WASP conspiracy.And nothing in the Constitution or the Federalist papers prevented the Chosen and their WASP admirers and collaborators from doing this. In fact the Constitution quite intentionally keeps the populace divided or factionalized so that an elite can do what the WASP-JEWISH conspiracy eventually ended up doing(WASP’s are now sidelined but that is another issue)Now I am more and more convinced that German tradition has had more to offer me on a range of political, social and economic issues than Anglo Saxon constitutionalism and individualism. Of course my enlightenment has come a little late but we are just waxing philosophical

Seems like someone is familiar with the Lind America’s Tribes hypotheses, eh?

More winning!

From a National Vanguard article, which essentially sums up what is, and always was, the real agenda of The National Alliance:

In 1921, after traveling to Europe, he wrote to Edmund Wilson that only those Europeans of purest blood, and that were most similar to America’s founding stock, should be allowed to immigrate to America.So much for the dreamy sophisticate of every English teacher’s dreams.He wanted to perpetuate the “Nordic spell”; he wanted a White ethnic self defense; he wanted the continuation of Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Just because the Sage of the Mountaintop, or today’s Keepers of the Zombie, wanted or want “D’Nations” from shabbos sud and shabbos ost stepandfetchits doesn’t mean they actually gave or give a damn about those peoples.  Any Southern or Eastern European who believes that Der Movement even remotely cares about non-“Nordics” is delusional.

Human Symbiosis

What can we say about symbiosis in human interactions?

Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις “living together”, from σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”)[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. The organisms, each termed a symbiont, may be of the same or of different species.

Let’s consider some aspects of symbiosis in human interactions, with an emphasis on inter-ethny relations.  This is not meant to be a comprehensive or final determination but merely an introduction, so these paradigms can be applied in future discussions when and where appropriate.

From the standpoint of gross EGI – looking at ethnic genetic interests without doing a full “balancing of the books” with respect to all the costs and benefits that determine the final outcome of adaptive fitness – then the presence of any genetically distinct minority group (no matter how small the genetic distance to the majority group) within a majoritarian state will exhibit parasitism, or at least amensalism, with respect to the majority group. The majority group is always harmed by the presence of the minority group with respect to gross EGI because the fixed carrying capacity of the territory reduces the final number of majority members that can fill that niche space, due to the presence of the minority group. This is akin to Yockey’s “Culture Parasitism” in which the parasitic group (in Yockey’s thesis, the outgroup is defined in terms of culture rather than genetics) reduces the numbers of the host High Culture majority group.  If the parasitic group benefits (as is usual) from living in the territory of the majority group that is parasitism; if there is no benefit, it is amensalism. The majority is harmed in all cases.  If the majority fights back, then we have competition, which can be harmful to both sides.

This conflict can end once assimilation of the minority group takes place; the minority becomes part of the majority so that symbiosis per se is not relevant.  However, the genetic costs to the majority of assimilating the minority is harmful to the EGI of the original majority stock (and is of course harmful to that of the minority stock). Once assimilation is complete however, we have a new people with its own set of genetic (and other) interests.

What about net EGI – the final, adaptive fitness outcome when the “balancing of the books” is complete – as well as proximate interests?  We can consider the various types of symbiosis.

Mutualism – both groups benefit.  For groups living in different polities it is possible – there can be alliances, cultural or economic exchanges, many possible types of mutualistic interactions, particularly between relatively closely related groups. For groups living in the same polity, this becomes more problematic.  One can envision two relatively similar groups supporting each other in competition with more alien competing outgroups – and this alliance become more tenable when the closely related allied groups are undergoing inter-marriage and assimilation. The various European ethnic groups in America are an example of this. Of course, this imposes costs on gross EGI; however, it may, dependent upon context, boost net EGI, if the benefits of the alliance – e.g., outcompeting the more genetically and culturally alien outgroups – outweigh the genetic costs in diluting a more concentrated EGI.

Commensalism – one group benefits while the other is neither harmed nor helped. Commensalism is common in individual or small scale human interactions.  Person A throws out some garbage, while person B finds that garbage useful and derives benefit from it. B is helped, while A is neither helped nor harmed.  It is difficult to think of examples – even when disregarding gross EGI – where larger scale human interactions within the same territory are truly commensal.  Perhaps, interactions between different separate nations can be commensal – the byproducts (even memetic) of one nation/people/ethny benefit another and the originator of the product is neither helped nor harmed.  But if both groups are residing in the same niche space, truly authentic examples of commensalism would be relatively rare.  Usually there are at least some benefits or harms, even if relatively marginal, to one group in contrast to the more obvious benefit enjoyed by another group. Unfortunately, many human interactions in the same niche space is zero sum game – parasitism, predation, and competition will be more common than commensalism. Given the relatively rarity of a true lack of effects on large groups, mutualism will be more common than commensalism as well.

Parasitism – one group benefits while harming the other group is harmed. The classic example is of Jews living in White nations, with the Jews benefiting and the Whites being harmed. This has been such a constant paradigm throughout history that a Wikipedia article has been made on it.  Of course, in some cases, Jewish parasitism descends into predation and/or if the afflicted host peoples fight back, competition.

Bowery’s ideas about extended phenotypes in human groups – as an extension of some of Dawkins’ work – are relevant here. One group controls the behavior of a second group so that the former benefits and the latter are harmed; here the second group acts as the extended phenotype of the first.  Jews controlling the societal milieu so as to modify White gentile behavior for Jewish benefit (and White harm) comes to mind; thus, White gentiles often become the extended phenotypes of Jews. The Whites are unable to control their own behavior and behave self-destructively to serve Jewish interests.

Are White HBDers the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians, particularly East Asians?  Were “White ethnic” members of the National Alliance the extended phenotype of William Pierce? 

Free-riding also comes into play here. When one group benefits from collective social goods to which they do not contribute, they benefit while the contributing groups are often harmed, since they carry the burden of contributing not only for themselves but for the non-contributing group. That is parasitism.

Predation – one group openly attacks and destroys the other.  For example, considering the role Jews play in America controlling sociopolitical systems to benefit themselves at the expense of Whites, that can be considered parasitism; however, considering Jews in the Soviet Union killing millions of Slavs, that is predation. The criminal attacks of Coloreds against Whites in multiracial nations is also predation, although of course parasitism is another key feature of Colored-White relations (typically, Coloreds benefit while Whites are harmed, although Negro slavery can be an example of the reverse). Race replacement, displacement, and White flight are examples of parasitism moving into predation, with undertones of competition when, rarely, Whites resist.

Neutralism – no effects for either group. Neutralism is possible between peoples living in separate nations, but for people living in the same territory, neutralism is extremely unlikely. There will be some types of positive and negative effects for either or both groups. There may be limited examples of very closely related groups living in the same polity that can have, in certain contexts and for certain periods of time, neutralistic relations, but that is rare.  More distant groups are unlikely to be neutralistic, even when disregarding gross EGI, because the differences between them will always manifest in proximate frictions that affect net EGI.

Amensalism – one group suffers no benefit or harm, but the other group is harmed.  Like commensalism, this is expected to be rare, since it is unlikely that the harm to one group in a polity would not benefit another. Perhaps there can be examples with relatively closely related groups.  If the groups are in separate nations it can be possible that the activities of one harms the other without benefiting the one causing the harm.  Symbiosis in which both groups are affected in some way would be more common than that in which one or both groups are not affected at all.

Competition – both groups are harmed. Competition is considered harmful to both sides, and often this is the case, at least until one side emerges victorious (if such occurs), after which the relationship may change (to, e.g., assimilation, parasitism, etc.).  

Both Yockey and MacDonald have written that the reaction against an intrusive group, even when necessary, can harm the group resisting.  If I recall, Yockey invoked the analogy of a fever, which, while helpful in combating the invasive pathogen, also harms, at least in the short run, the invaded host.

On the other hand, one can think of situations where, in the long term, competition could be beneficial to one or both sides even in the absence of a “final victory.”  Some would say one reason why Europe had so many advancements was the competition between different European nations – a completion that forced and fostered a constant “arms race” of competitive advantages – as opposed of a centralized massive Chinese state lacking in the dynamism of such constant internal turmoil. Of course, today, the level of competition is global, so the same dynamism could be provoked by a confederation of Europe vs. China.  

However, if one defines competition as something which is inherently harmful to both sides, then a situation in which competition is beneficial to one side but not the other would be, for example, parasitism and if beneficial to both sides, mutualism.  

The problem in putting predation into the completion category in that sense is that one could argue that predation benefits the predator (although there are risks in predation, sometimes the prey can kill the predator). One could argue that natural selection from predators improves the prey – mutualism?  It’s complicated.

It is of course possible for the types of symbiosis to change over time (e.g., from parasitism to predation). In heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage, the typical trajectory is that the relationship starts out as mutualism (both sides benefit) then transitions to commensalism (female benefits, male is neutral), and then ends up as parasitism (female benefits, male is harmed).  If the marriage ends up in divorce, female parasitism on the male can become extreme, even moving into predation. Note than even during the mutualism phase, the male can be considered as the extended phenotype of the female, with male behavior controlled through sexual exploitation. Also see this. The man is hormonally domesticated so as to be exploited by the woman in marriage.

Ultimately, the woman is to the man as the Jew is to the gentile.

What is observed in marriage can apply on a broader scale to relations between ethnies.